Gov Dayton

[Big Dave2]

There is a reason the Libertarian Party only gets a miniscule number of votes in elections.

Because the majority of the voters are sheep who are dependent on government handouts and don't want to be personally responsible?

[delcecchi]

Because the majority of the voters are sheep who are dependent on government handouts and don't want to be personally responsible?

Ah, the old "the people are too stupid to make the right choice" meme. I guess the founders should have gone for the monarchy after all. /sarcasm

[swamptiger]

Which is worse, monarchs or dictators?

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

[FM_Mike]

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

This is too true.

There will come a time when the makers will revote against the takers, but will find themselves outnumbered.

The total collapse of society will not be far behind as we inch closer and closer to the inevitable.

THANK YOU PROGRESSIVES!!

Mike

[upnorth]

This is too true.

There will come a time when the makers will revote against the takers, but will find themselves outnumbered.

The total collapse of society will not be far behind as we inch closer and closer to the inevitable.

THANK YOU PROGRESSIVES!!

Mike

Sad to say the "conservatives" are no different.

[smartguy]

There will come a time when the makers will revote against the takers, but will find themselves outnumbered.

The total collapse of society will not be far behind as we inch closer and closer to the inevitable.

THANK YOU PROGRESSIVES!!

Mike

Are you paying royalties to Ayn Rand's estate for this? Where were you 8 years ago when I read her 1000 page dissertation on your view? To think of all the time I could have saved . . . . . .

[FM_Mike]

Where were you 8 years ago when I read her 1000 page dissertation on your view? To think of all the time I could have saved . . . . . .

Right here preaching the evils of Progressivism.

Hmmm, if only you would have just paid attention.....

Mike

[PurpleFloyd]

I did edit to remove the repetitive "reduce government spending" from many of the items, along with occasional other comments not really related to the proposed action.

I don't know if this is intended to be a menu, or a list.

Also I don't know if the 1998 spending limit is in constant dollars or nominal dollars.

So can you please point out specifically which of those things are bad ideas and why?

[delcecchi]

So can you please point out specifically which of those things are bad ideas and why?

I will leave that up to the public and the readers to decide for themselves.

[PurpleFloyd]

I can't even really decide, given the incoherence of the list. Basically "abolish individual and corporate income tax" and "balance the budget". I know they want to cut spending but to do both those things would require a balance point near zero.

And I wondered about "Fully privatize Social Security and repeal the FICA tax; sell federal assets to create private retirement accounts (i.e., no government control or involvement) for seniors who paid into Social Security and who are dependent upon it."

Who determines who is dependent on Social Security? What federal assets would be sold?

There is a reason the Libertarian Party only gets a miniscule number of votes in elections.

Apparently because too many people have comprehension problems as shown above.

[delcecchi]

Ah, the mating call of the fringe.. "The people are too stupid to understand the greatness of my beliefs".

That must pretty much wreck your faith in the Constitution, eh?

[Big Dave2]

Ah, the mating call of the fringe.. "The people are too stupid to understand the greatness of my beliefs".

That must pretty much wreck your faith in the Constitution, eh?

LOL, you mean this post doesn't describe Republicans to a T? Which side is it that usually goes on and on about "low information voters"?

[PurpleFloyd]

Ah, the mating call of the fringe.. "The people are too stupid to understand the greatness of my beliefs".

That must pretty much wreck your faith in the Constitution, eh?

Hey, you are the one who said you couldn't comprehend basic single sentence concepts,not the libertarian's

[Slabasaurus]

Because the majority of the voters are sheep who are dependent on government handouts and don't want to be personally responsible?

blaming everyone else for the ineptitude of yer own party and its struggles to convey a message that more than 5% of the electorate can get on board with?

At what point does it becomes clear the problem might not necessarily be with everyone else...

[Big Dave2]

blaming everyone else for the ineptitude of yer own party and its struggles to convey a message that more than 5% of the electorate can get on board with?

At what point does it becomes clear the problem might not necessarily be with everyone else...

Of course it's going to be hard to get more than 5% of the vote when you are the only party not promising to give people stuff. Duh!

So tell me.........is the problem that the Libertarians don't give handouts or is the problem that everyone wants hand outs and votes for the parties that will oblige?

[delcecchi]

Or is the problem that people don't think abolishing the FDA, Eminent Domain, and restrictions on collusion and discrimination, while legalizing drugs and prostitution and dramatically reducing the military and opening the borders is necessarily a good idea. In the official "platform" there are all sorts of extreme ideas.

You guys are always talking about "handouts" but that is the least part of the Libertarian Party program.

[FM_Mike]

So tell me.........is the problem that the Libertarians don't give handouts or is the problem that everyone wants hand outs and votes for the parties that will oblige?

Maybe the problem is, very few people support or vote for the Libertarian candidates. That's an undeniable FACT, the polls bear it out, it is not even up for discussion.

You sound like Obama and his minions, it's everyone else's fault that you don't understand my position.

But keep making excuses, that certainly solidifies what most have thought, blaming everyone else for your parties lack of relevance.

Mike

[swamptiger]

Quote:

So tell me.........is the problem that the Libertarians don't give handouts or is the problem that everyone wants hand outs and votes for the parties that will oblige?

The record shows modern "conservatives" are also very conservative when it comes to cutting government spending...

[Big Dave2]

Or is the problem that people don't think abolishing the FDA, Eminent Domain, and restrictions on collusion and discrimination, while legalizing drugs and prostitution and dramatically reducing the military and opening the borders is necessarily a good idea. In the official "platform" there are all sorts of extreme ideas.

You guys are always talking about "handouts" but that is the least part of the Libertarian Party program.

Yes, I could see where "freedom" would be a terrible idea.

[Big Dave2]

But keep making excuses, that certainly solidifies what most have thought, blaming everyone else for your parties lack of relevance.

Mike

Again, this sounds more like what I have heard from the GOP the last 6 years.

[upnorth]

All I can add to this is keep doing what you are doing(voting the same way) and you will keep getting what you are getting.

[Big Dave2]

Or is the problem that people don't think abolishing the FDA, Eminent Domain, and restrictions on collusion and discrimination, while legalizing drugs and prostitution and dramatically reducing the military and opening the borders is necessarily a good idea. In the official "platform" there are all sorts of extreme ideas.

You guys are always talking about "handouts" but that is the least part of the Libertarian Party program.

Back when the constitution was framed, was there an FDA, Eminent Domain or all the things that you refer to as restrictions on collusion and discrimination? Were drugs and prostitution illegal? Was military spending as large as it is today? Were borders closed?

You refer to the constitution as much as any one on this site but yet you want to continue and in some cases even double down on all of the failed policies of the modern era?

[FM_Mike]

Again, this sounds more like what I have heard from the GOP the last 6 years.

I wonder which party, in January, will control BOTH houses of Congress. (Not really, I know)

I'll give you a hint, the Libertarian Party isn't one of them.

Mike

[Big Dave2]

I wonder which party, in January, will control BOTH houses of Congress. (Not really, I know)

I'll give you a hint, the Libertarian Party isn't one of them.

Mike

I wonder who they will blame then?

[amateurfishing]

Big Dave 2, thats easy.....Boehner is already attempting to blame the "lame duck" president. Watched part of a post election news conference with him and when a reporter asked him how he was going to keep his party members in line ( some left wing and vigilante newbies) his immediate response was "that is a very inappropriate question" and "stfu".

[delcecchi]

Back when the constitution was framed, was there an FDA, Eminent Domain or all the things that you refer to as restrictions on collusion and discrimination? Were drugs and prostitution illegal? Was military spending as large as it is today? Were borders closed?

You refer to the constitution as much as any one on this site but yet you want to continue and in some cases even double down on all of the failed policies of the modern era?

There was the notion of Eminent Domain, hence the "takings" clause in the Constitution.

Perhaps you ought to defend the LP platform and explain why the legalization of Heroin and Meth is a good idea.

Why is it that you never defend LP policies and always attack other's policies?

Do you really believe that shrinking the military to pre WW2 status is a good idea? Why do you believe that?

Do you think that allowing people to sell any compound for any purpose to anyone is a good idea? Do you believe that, at this point in time, allowing anyone who chooses to come here and stay legally? Should they get to vote?

How about licensing? Should anyone be able to provide any service to anyone?

And how about collusion? Should all the business folks be able to get together and set prices for their goods? (you did read about Standard Oil, right?

[Juneau4]

If they can't get anything settled they probably could settle the issues the same way our proud founding fathers did. Go out and have a "Duel" just like Burr and Hamilton did, it wasn't legal but they still did it. Legalities didn't matter much to our founding fathers either. I just wonder what the choice of weapons would be and if Cheney would be the second for anyone.

[FM_Mike]

I wonder who they will blame then?

I guess that's an advantage of being irrelevant, never have to worry about being blamed.

So in essence, you do have something to tout. You can just blame everyone else and NEVER be in a position to solve anything, because your party will likely never be in a position to do so.

Similar to yelling at a referee during a football game, you can scream at the top of your lungs how badly they are calling the game, but in all honesty, you have absolutely no influence in the outcome.

Right now, your party only acts only as a spoiler, nothing more, and will be relegated to that position until they can prove their relevance to more than 5% of the electorate.

Mike

[DrJill]

I think libertarians have some good ideas, but ...

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would wait until the election is over to start their full court press on libertarian positions.

The next election is 720 days in the future gentlemen.

This thread is 6 months old.

There hasn't been a mention of Dayton in a week.

Give it a rest.

[LMITOUT]

There hasn't been a mention of Dayton in a week.

Kinda like the media...they never bothered to interview or question him for weeks leading to the election either.